Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sustainability 12 00738
Sustainability 12 00738
Article
Standalone Photovoltaic Direct Pumping in Urban
Water Pressurized Networks with Energy Storage in
Tanks or Batteries
Miguel Ángel Pardo 1, * , Ricardo Cobacho 2 and Luis Bañón 1
1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690 Alicante,
Spain; lbanon@ua.es
2 ITA, Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València,
46022 Valencia, Spain; rcobacho@ita.upv.es
* Correspondence: mpardo@ua.es
Received: 28 November 2019; Accepted: 15 January 2020; Published: 20 January 2020
Abstract: Photovoltaic energy production is nowadays one of the hottest topics in the water industry
as this green energy source is becoming more and more workable in countries like Spain, with high
values of irradiance. In water pressurized systems supplying urban areas, they distribute energy
consumption in pumps throughout the day, and it is not possible to supply electromechanical devices
without energy storages such as batteries. Additionally, it is not possible to manage energy demand
for water consumption. Researchers and practitioners have proven batteries to be reliable energy
storage systems, and are undertaking many efforts to increase their performance, capacity, and useful
life. Water pressurized networks incorporate tanks as devices used for accumulating water during
low consumption hours while releasing it in peak hours. The compensation tanks work here as
a mass and energy source in water pressurized networks supplied with photovoltaic arrays (not
electricity grids). This work intends to compare which of these two energy storage systems are better
and how to choose between them considering that these two systems involve running the network as
a standalone pumping system without being connected to electricity grids. This work also calculates
the intermediate results, considering both photovoltaic arrays and electricity grids for supplying
electricity to pumping systems. We then analyzed these three cases in a synthetic network (used in
earlier research) considering the effect of irradiation and water consumption, as we did not state
which should be the most unfavorable month given that higher irradiance coincides with higher
water consumption (i.e., during summer). Results show that there is no universal solution as energy
consumption depends on the network features and that energy production depends very much on
latitude. We based the portfolio of alternatives on investments for purchasing different equipment
at present (batteries, pipelines, etc.) based on economic criteria so that the payback period is the
indicator used for finding the best alternative, which is the one with the lowest value.
1. Introduction
One challenge for water pressurized network (WPN) managers is the efficient management
of water and energy (both scarce resources). The water scarcity problem will be more serious
due to the increase in population and the water demand will be 70% higher for the year 2050 [1].
Although practitioners know this water scarcity problem well, the energy problem is not a minor issue.
In 2016, the International Energy Agency [2] stated that energy use in the water sector in 2014 was
equivalent to 4% of global electricity consumption. Europe has similar numbers, with 3% of global
electricity consumption [3], and other studies on efficient and low-carbon energy consumption have
been carried out worldwide [4–8]. In Spain, the water sector consumed 5.8% in 2008 [9], but the authors
did not include Spanish households in the primary energy consumed.
In this scenario, with high pressure on the environment, solar energy has emerged as an alternative
for energy and emissions reduction. Standalone photovoltaic (PV) systems have become one of
the hottest topics in energy production in Spain because of changes in legislation to eliminate taxes
linked to energy obtained from sunlight and the price drop in solar panels. Researchers have carried
out many projects in optimizing the use of PV systems in general (production, storage, scheduling,
etc.) [10–13]. Additionally, their use in irrigation networks has been explored [14–16] because of
their energy consumption reduction [17,18]. Some approaches have focused on standalone direct
pumping photovoltaic systems without storage systems [19,20], on solving the shadows passing over
the generator [21], on investigating the effect of variable solar radiation on a PV based system [22]
and on coupling irrigation scheduling with solar energy production [23]. A tool to synchronize the
energy produced and the energy required in an irrigation network while minimizing the number of
photovoltaic solar panels was developed [24], which requires that operators control the water and
energy demand to fit the energy required by crops to the energy produced by photovoltaic (PV) panels.
Some other approaches have calculated the life cycle of a PV system considering the environmental
and economic impact sources for rural irrigation systems [25] and the energy payback time and
greenhouse emissions [26]. Although operators cannot control the water demands in urban WPN as
they do in irrigation systems, this did not avoid the use of photovoltaic technology to supply pumping
devices in many regions of the world such as the USA [27,28], India [29], Finland [30], Brazil [31],
Malaysia [32], and Spain [33]. In areas with high potential (semi-arid regions and high irradiation
levels), many practitioners implement this technology for sizing PV systems [34–37], minimizing the
number of PV modules [38], optimizing the tilt angle [39,40], and comparing the environmental and
economic impacts of supplying pumps with electricity grids or PV cells [41]. Photovoltaic systems
may influence the voltage quality in electricity grids [42], affecting the voltage profile and harmonic
distortion of the current and voltage, although some customer-side energy storage systems can make
voltage management more economical [43], we proposed using the energy produced in pumping
devices that may work as a standalone system. Economic prioritization for the PV installation
alternatives has been proposed [44] for minimizing the payback period (period required to recoup
the funds invested). We can use this method in urban WPNs to find the best alternative when the
utility manager is planning a PV system to feed pumping devices. Nowadays, the utility manager
does not know which is the best choice between two common alternatives: batteries or a compensation
tank as energy storage. Water pressurized networks were designed without considering tanks in the
optimization process, but researchers and practitioners have made an effort to integrate them and
optimize their size [45–48] in real-world operation projects. Tanks are of paramount importance in
WPNs [45] because of their use as water storage (filled during the day while it empties, releasing
the volume at night) for daily use and in emergencies, but they present inconveniences regarding
higher water age and higher energy consumption [49], and some approaches have considered the
effect of tanks in the indirect water supply [50]. Recent works highlight batteries as an environmental
alternative [51–53] in many types of standalone PV systems [54], to concentrate the solar energy to
a higher power, and to solve irregularities in the solar irradiation [55]. Some approaches have also
analyzed PV hybrid solutions (the electric power grid vs. diesel and photovoltaic generators) [56].
This work compares an urban WPN current state (Case 0; pumps powered by electricity grids)
and the new scenarios reached if PV arrays feed pump devices. We converted the urban WPN into
a standalone direct pumping photovoltaic network with energy storage in batteries (Case I) or in
deposits (Case II). To compare these scenarios, we assessed the energy savings on hydraulic models to
calculate the response of each alternative and calculate intermediate solutions (Case III), where PV
arrays supply pumps during daylight and electricity grids at night. We planned this problem as
a discrete optimization problem, and the lowest payback periods are the most effective option.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 3 of 20
The limitations of this study are that it requires a calibrated hydraulic model, which represents
an urban WPN meeting the quality and pressure service standards [57] in EPAnet [58], although the
calculation in some other hydraulic solvers is also possible such as WDNetXL [59], Infoworks, etc.
We calculated the energy consumption in the WPN with UAEnergy software [60], and with the energy
efficiency of the pump, we calculated the energy savings and variable costs linked to energy [61].
Some other restrictions appeared in the optimization problem as energy production varies monthly,
so the compensation tank should have sufficient volume to avoid overflows, and water should be
delivered to meet the quality and pressure standards (hydraulic restrictions).
We rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2.1 shows the formulas used for calculating
energy production and its variation. Section 2.2 analyzes the key features arising if storing energy in
deposits, Section 2.3 quantifies the energy savings calculations, and Section 2.4 describes the return
on investment calculation. Section 3 presents the optimization problem while Section 4 performs the
synthetic case study. Section 4.1 presents the input data and Section 4.2 shows the step-by-step results,
Section 4.3 the discussion section, Section 4.4 perform the sensitivity analysis and Section 4.5 outlines
the future developments. Finally, Section 5 shows our key conclusions.
where ∀cons is the city daily water demand and ∀irr the volume consumed when there is sunlight and
the PV arrays are supplying electricity to the water pumps. Figure 1 shows a typical situation as the
water pumps have eight hours to fill the tank and the energy should be lower than that of the energy
production (stripped line).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 4 of 20
Figure 1.
Figure The energy
1. The energy produced
produced and
and demanded
demanded in the Water
in the Water Pressurized
Pressurized Network
Network (WPN).
(WPN).
In many urbanEnergy
2.3. Non-Renewable WPNs,Savings
it is essential to enlarge the compensation tank to store these amounts of
water. The need to fill the tank in these irradiance hours should involve over-sizing some pipelines and
addingWesome
defined
newand divided
pumping the final
devices. Weprice of water
should intoall
consider fixed and
these variable costs
infrastructure [61].
costs as The variable
investments
cost of water
performed mayinitial
in the depend
yearon(I0the
). water cost itself (economic cost of the source in its raw state, not
relevant as the cost of the water delivered must be the same to allow comparison), the energy cost
2.3. Non-Renewable
(electricity suppliedEnergy Savings
by grids or by the photovoltaic process), and useful life of the infrastructure
(pipelines, pumps, PV arrays, batteries, etc.).
We defined and divided the final price of water into fixed and variable costs [61]. The variable cost
This new energy source involves saving non-renewable fuels (coal, oil fired, nuclear). The
of water may depend on the water cost itself (economic cost of the source in its raw state, not relevant
economic savings expected in standalone PV direct pumping in WPNs should be the electricity costs
as the cost of the water delivered must be the same to allow comparison), the energy cost (electricity
as PV panels will produce the energy demanded. We expect lower savings for intermediate solutions
supplied by grids or by the photovoltaic process), and useful life of the infrastructure (pipelines,
where PV panels provide energy during daylight and electricity grids for the rest of the day.
pumps, PV arrays, batteries, etc.).
This new energy source involves saving non-renewable fuels (coal, oil fired, nuclear).
2.4. Economic Prioritization of the Alternatives
The economic savings expected in standalone PV direct pumping in WPNs should be the electricity
costsEconomic prioritization
as PV panels will produceinvolves solvingdemanded.
the energy an optimization problem
We expect where
lower the indicator
savings used for
for intermediate
getting the
solutions prioritization
where PV panelsscheme
provide is energy
the payback
duringperiod [44]and
daylight (Equation (2)).grids for the rest of the day.
electricity
−1 𝑟. 𝐼
𝑇 =
2.4. Economic Prioritization of the Alternatives . ln 1 − (2)
𝑟 𝑆
Economic prioritization involves solving an optimization problem where the indicator used for
where Ti (years) is the payback period (value to minimize as lower values involve higher water and
getting the prioritization scheme is the payback period [44] (Equation (2)).
energy savings per monetary unit invested); r is the equivalent continuous discount rate [66] used for
expressing future savings in monetary units −1 at the present
r.I0 time; I0 is the investment performed in
!
year 0; and Si is the economic savings. Ti = r . ln 1 − S (2)
i
The utility manager needs to analyze whether it is better to use batteries or tanks for energy
storageTior(years)
where is the payback
an intermediate period
mixed (value
solution to minimize
combining energyas lower values
supplied by involve higher
PV arrays and water and
electricity
energy savings per monetary unit invested); r is the equivalent continuous discount
grids. In this analysis, the decision-makers must make investments now to gain future revenues rate [66] used for
expressing future savings
(energy savings; in monetary
cumulative cost). Weunits at the present
calculated time; I0period
the payback is the investment
to compareperformed in year
the alternatives,
0;
with Si lowest
andthe is the economic savings.
value being the best alternative.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 5 of 20
The utility manager needs to analyze whether it is better to use batteries or tanks for energy
storage or an intermediate mixed solution combining energy supplied by PV arrays and electricity
grids. In this analysis, the decision-makers must make investments now to gain future revenues
(energy savings; cumulative cost). We calculated the payback period to compare the alternatives,
with the lowest value being the best alternative.
3. Optimization Problem
Figure 2 reproduces
needed the case
for the present calculation
(Step 2). process
With thedesigned in six stages.
results obtained in StepsFirst,
1 andwe calculated
2, we the
calculated themonthly
energy number
available (Step
of PV 1). NWith
panels, (Stepthe daily
3), and we solar duration
designed data
three cases from
(Step 4). Step 1, we can study the needs
The increased
(pumps, pipes, latest case (the WPN of
volume operates by getting
the tank, energy from thewe
etc.). Additionally, electricity grids)the
calculated incorporates N
energy needed for
potential schemes, each of them with several PV panels installed ranging from 0 to N.
the present case (Step 2). With the results obtained in Steps 1 and 2, we calculated the number of PV
In Step 5, we quantify the investments and savings for the scenarios represented before, and we
panels, N (Step 3), and we designed three cases (Step 4).
determine the payback period for every scheme in Step 6.
Figure
Figure 2. 2. Workflow
Workflow for process
for the the process
to to calculatethe
calculate the most
mostenergy-efficient
energy-efficientcombination for thefor
combination problem.
the problem.
Step 1: Calculation of the monthly energy available per PV panel and the hourly irradiation for
The latest case (the WPN operates by getting energy from the electricity grids) incorporates N
every month.
potential schemes, each of them with several PV panels installed ranging from 0 to N.
Step 2: Calculation of the monthly shaft work required by the pumps in the WPN.
In StepWith
5, wethequantify the investments
hourly values of irradiation, and savings
the utility for the
manager scenarios
should count ifrepresented
the pump maybefore,
elevate and we
determine
the the
wholepayback
amount period
of waterfor every
to the scheme intank,
compensation Stepif6.the pipeline diameters are adequate and if
the1:compensation
Step Calculationtank capacity
of the is big enough
monthly energytoavailable
allow for thepernew
PVoperation
panel andplan. Ashourly
the shown inirradiation
Figure for
1, pumps
every month. can only work within the central hours of the day and the compensation tank must not be
exceeded (water is a valuable resource) nor the tank emptied (air would enter the WPN).
Step 2: Calculation of the monthly shaft work required by the pumps in the WPN.
Step 3: Calculation of the number of PV arrays.
With the Wehourly values
considered thatofthe
irradiation,
minimum the utility
number of manager
solar panelsshould count
matching theif constraint
the pumpenergy
may elevate
the whole amount
available of watermust
(produced) to the compensation
be greater tank, ifrequired
than the energy the pipeline
by the diameters
WPN at every aremoment
adequate and if the
of the
compensation
day [24]:tank capacity is big enough to allow for the new operation plan. As shown in Figure 1,
pumps can only work within the central hours of the 𝐸 day and the compensation tank must not be
𝑁 ∗ = max 𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑙 (3)
exceeded (water is a valuable resource) nor the tank emptied 𝐸 (air would enter the WPN).
Step 3: Calculation
where 𝐸 is the of
i-ththe number
value (being ofi a PV arrays.
month) for the unitary energy available (Step 1) and 𝐸
Weisconsidered
the i-th valuethat
forthe
the minimum number
energy available (Stepof2).
solar
The panels
quotientmatching
𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑙 the is
constraint
the number energy
of solaravailable
(produced) must be greater than the energy required by the WPN at every moment of the day [24]:
Ereq−i
(
" !#)!
∗
Nmod = max ceil (3)
Eav−i
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 7 of 20
where Eav−i is the i-th value (being i a month) for the unitary energy available (Step 1) and Ereq−i
Ereq−i
is the i-th value for the energy available (Step 2). The quotient ceil E is the number of solar
av−i
panels to meet the i-th water demand for every month studied. This is a 12 × 1 vector that shows the
number of PVs necessary for every month. The greatest of these 12 values results in the number of
solar panels required.
∗ ) considering the electricity consumed by the city and
We calculated the total of solar panels (Nmod
electricity produced by the PV arrays. This collection does not depend on energy storage (tanks or
batteries). This value is the upper threshold (Nmod ∗ ) for the intermediate case. If we produce more
energy, the WPN may work disconnected from the electricity grids.
Step 4: Description of alternatives.
The first alternative is to accumulate the energy in batteries, and the second alternative is to store
the energy in tanks. These options involve as many PV panels as required to operate as standalone
systems (without being supplied by electricity grids). The third alternative involves generating several
combinations with a different number of solar panels (varying among 0 and Nmod ∗ ) for an intermediate
4. Case Study
To illustrate the proposed method, Figure 1 shows the case study analyzed here (latitude ϕ =
39.47◦ N and longitude 0.3747◦ W). Line and node data, demand pattern multipliers, etc., can be found
in [67] and in Supplementary Materials. We proposed Case 0 as the current state of the WPN where the
pumps are supplied by electricity grids and they start and stop working controlled by the tank level.
In Cases I and II, the PV arrays supply the whole energy demanded by the pumping devices in
the WPN. Case I includes batteries that store the peak energy production (at midday) and release this
at night, while Case II is the scenario in which we store energy in the compensation tank (Figure 3),
feeding pumping systems with PV arrays for the central hours of the day (from 6:50 to 16:30 h).
Case II involves pumping the whole daily water consumption in the above central hours of the day.
Therefore, we expect to solve the hydraulic restrictions increasing the pumping capacity with pumps
operating in parallel, pipe diameters, and the tank capacity (now it should be able to store a higher
volume of water).
at night, while Case II is the scenario in which we store energy in the compensation tank (Figure 3),
feeding pumping systems with PV arrays for the central hours of the day (from 6:50 to 16:30 h). Case
II involves pumping the whole daily water consumption in the above central hours of the day.
Therefore, we expect to solve the hydraulic restrictions increasing the pumping capacity with pumps
Sustainabilityin
operating 2020, 12, 738 pipe diameters, and the tank capacity (now it should be able to store a higher
parallel, 8 of 20
volume of water).
Figure 3.
Figure The general
3. The general layout
layout of
of the
the network.
network.
Finally, Case III is the intermediate case in which we installed PV arrays as energy support during
daylight, but we supply the pumps at nights through electricity grids.
Some data vary with the month as the monthly average temperature (Tavg ) and the day of the
representative month (n coefficient, the value that highlights monthly energy production variation [63])
is shown in Table 2. Due to the measurements performed by the flowmeter installed in pipeline 10,
we included the monthly variation of the city water demand. A multiplier K on the average water
demand of the consumption nodes (domiciliary uses) is depicted in Table 2.
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
n 17 47 75 105 135 162 198 228 258 288 318 344
Tavg (◦ C) 11.5 12.6 13.9 15.5 18.4 22.1 24.9 25.5 23.1 19.1 14.9 12.4
Havg (kWh m−2 ) 2.6 3.5 4.7 6.7 7.4 7.8 8 6.5 5.4 3.7 2.6 2.2
K 1.01 0.82 0.85 1.07 0.95 1.02 1.16 1.15 0.95 1.00 1.05 0.94
equal to 0.1 mm, the diameter of the compensation tank was 20 m, and its level oscillated between
2.5 m (initial value for the simulation) and 7 m (maximum value).
Components Investment
PV array 359 (EUR/unit)
Batteries 65,789 (EUR)
Pipelines DN350 39.52 (EUR/m)
Pipelines DN300 32.06 (EUR/m)
Pump 5068 (EUR)
Oversizing tank 100 (EUR/m3 )
We calculated the economic savings considering the 3.0 Tariff. These costs depend on three
components (power in kW, active energy in kWh, and reactive energy in kVArh) as well as hourly
(peak, plain, and low) and seasonal variations (winter and summer otherwise). Every detail is shown
in Table 4.
Reactive
Power Energy Cons.
Winter Summer Energy
(EUR/kW) (EUR/kWh)
(EUR/kVArh)
Peak 18–22 h 11–15 h 59.173 0.095 0.062
8–18 h 8–11 h
Plain 36.491 0.086 0.062
22–24 h 15–24 h
Low 0–8 h 0–8 h 8.368 0.065 0.000
Regarding the useful life of the infrastructure, 25 years is the value selected for the PV arrays
and pumps devices, while five years was for batteries and 50 years for pipelines. Standalone direct
pumping photovoltaic systems represent high revenue as it eliminates fixed costs related to the use of
electricity grids.
4.2. Results
to 30 m and the tank capacity was great enough to allow for water supply
With the tank dimensions presented in case 0, we calculated the maximum volume stored ∀ during the night. =
The pumps must supply the whole amount of water (3326.40 m 3 ) in 8–10 h, which means greater
1413.72 m , a value that we should increase to meet in Equation (1). Finally, we enlarged the new
3
flow
tank rates (andup
diameter head losses)
to 30 m and than
thethose planned was
tank capacity when dimensioning
great enough to this allow WPN. Usingsupply
for water three pumps
during
running
the night.in parallel increases the flow rates, and resizing pipelines reduce head losses (new diameter
for pipelines
The pumps 10 and
must11supply
are 350the and 300 mm;
whole Figure
amount 3). The
of water decision
(3326.40 m3)of in selecting a different
8–10 h, which meansnumber
greater
of pumps, increase in other pipeline diameters, and enlarging the tank
flow rates (and head losses) than those planned when dimensioning this WPN. Using three dimensions are not the key
pumps
running in parallel increases the flow rates, and resizing pipelines reduce head losses (new diameter
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
EP/Ep*
1
y = 0.2697x + 0.7292
0.95 R² = 0.9972
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2
Monthly basedemand multiplier, K(-)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Energy
Energy consumption
consumption variation
variation vs.
vs. the
the base
base demand multiplier.
demand multiplier.
In Case II, the PV arrays, re-sizing pipelines, increasing the number of pumps and increasing
tank capacity represent the investments to address in year 0. I0 ∗ = I0 + Ipipes + Ipumps + Itank =
P P P
Figure 6. The
Figure 6. The payback
payback period
period for
for the
the number
number of
of PV
PV arrays
arrays installed.
installed.
4.3. Discussion
4.3. Discussion
For clarification, we summarize the essential aspects of the method proposed and the case study
For clarification, we summarize the essential aspects of the method proposed and the case study
developed in this section. In general terms, using renewable energies (PV arrays) is more convenient
developed in this section. In general terms, using renewable energies (PV arrays) is more convenient
than conventional electricity supply through grids. However, three key uncertainties make it difficult to
than conventional electricity supply through grids. However, three key uncertainties make it difficult
obtain the right calculation to justify the investment needed for the transition: quantity and variability
to obtain the right calculation to justify the investment needed for the transition: quantity and
of water consumption, size and variation of solar irradiation, and features of the water distribution
variability of water consumption, size and variation of solar irradiation, and features of the water
network (layout, sizing, pumps, etc.).
distribution network (layout, sizing, pumps, etc.).
The data to carry out the calculations for this assessment are not a problem, since information
The data to carry out the calculations for this assessment are not a problem, since information
on solar radiation, water consumption, and network composition is available (the data required
on solar radiation, water consumption, and network composition is available (the data required were
were described in Section 3.1). The practical problem deals with the procedure for performing these
described in Section 3.1). The practical problem deals with the procedure for performing these
calculations, and this is the task resolved by the method we present here. We should remark that
calculations, and this is the task resolved by the method we present here. We should remark that the
the whole method is available and described here, is UAEnergy, a free MATLAB-based educational
whole method is available and described here, is UAEnergy, a free MATLAB-based educational
software (source codes available in [60]) developed to compute the energy audit of WPNs.
software (source codes available in [60]) developed to compute the energy audit of WPNs.
The case study aims to illustrate this. Thus, for a supply of 20,000 people, we propose the following
The case study aims to illustrate this. Thus, for a supply of 20,000 people, we propose the
cases:
following cases:
• Case 0 (current): Direct electric supply from the grid (non-renewable energy).
• Case 0 (current): Direct electric supply from the grid (non-renewable energy).
•• Case
Case I:I: Full
Full electricity
electricity supply
supply through
through PVPV (renewable
(renewable energy)
energy) and
and energy
energy storage
storage inin batteries
batteries of
of
the surplus electricity during peak production
the surplus electricity during peak production hours. hours.
•• Case
Case II:
II: Full
Full electricity
electricity supply
supply byby PV
PV (renewable
(renewable energy)
energy) and
and energy
energy storage
storage in
in aa compensation
compensation
tank (as potential energy) of the surplus electricity during peak production
tank (as potential energy) of the surplus electricity during peak production hours. hours.
•• Case
Case III:
III: Electricity
Electricity supply
supply combining
combining PV PV (renewable
(renewable energy)
energy) at
at sunlight
sunlight hours
hours and
and direct
direct from
from
the
the grid
grid (non-renewable
(non-renewable energy)
energy)atatnight.
night.
The average
averagewater
waterconsumption
consumption forfor every
every case
case studied
studied waswas 3326.40
3326.40 m3/day /day (being
m3(being +18.38%+18.38%
in July
in
andJuly and −24.42%
−24.42% in February).
in February). Theaverage
The yearly yearly average energy production
energy production perPV
per single single PVwas
array array was
1402.73
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 14 of 20
1402.73 kWh/day (the peak in July was 1990.96 kWh/day and the lowest value was 791.49 kWh/day in
December).
In Cases 0, I, and III, the average energy consumption was equal to 813.20 kWh/day (the greatest
and the smallest energy consumptions were 886.16 kWh/day in July and 734.94 kWh/day in February).
In Case II, these figures were 960.67, 977.55, and 941.86 kWh/day. We calculated this with the data
provided by Table 5.
The application of the method (Figure 2) allowed us to quantify the key values for each alternative.
While Cases I and II showed various investments (described in Section 4.2.4), Case III incorporated
a high number of cases (a finite number ranging from 0 to the minimum number of PV arrays for
other cases analyzed). We computed the cost savings with the Spanish 3.0 tariff. In Cases I and II,
we saved the electricity before it was consumed (in the current state, Case 0), but in Case III, we saved
a smaller amount of energy as the system worked as a hybrid solution combining renewable energy
and electricity from the grid. We summarize these in Table 7.
Standalone PV Direct
Electricity Supply Combining PV Panels and Electricity Grids
Pumping
Case I Case II Case III
Panels,
Actions compensation Panels and batteries.
Panels and
(Purchase and tank, new Number of Panels range from 0 to N (minimum number of panels
batteries.
installation) pumps, sizing for Case I and II, here N = 1000)
pipelines
No. of Panels
1000 1207 100 300 500 700 900
(Table 5)
Total Investment
631,509 782,529 35,948 107,844 179,740 251,636 323,532
(Section 4.2.4)
Savings
(EUR/year) 96,805 96,805 5033 14,943 18,668 20,410 22,058
(Table 6)
Payback Period
6.99 8.82 7.71 7.79 10.69 14.16 17.36
(Section 4.2.5)
In this case study, it turns out that energy storage in batteries resulted in the best solution
(the minimum payback period). However, aforementioned, this was not relevant, but the method.
This work highlights that Cases I and II returned the most non-renewable energy savings (and
emissions) and Case III showed an intermediate scenario that was much more favorable for the number
of PV panels below 250 (when the number increases, every new panel results in lower savings and
consequently a higher payback period, Figure 6).
Payback
Figure 7. Figure periodsperiods
7. Payback for different values
for different of rof(equivalent
values r (equivalent continuous discount
continuous discount rate).
rate). N stands
N stands for for
number ofnumber
panels.
of panels.
25
Case III, N=900
Case III, N=500
20
Case II
Payback Period (years)
15 Case I
10
0
250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390
Cost of the PV array (EUR)
5. Conclusions
This work deals with converting an urban WPN (with pumps supplied by electricity grids) into
a standalone direct pumping photovoltaic system. Utility managers are facing this opportunity as
photovoltaic panels have become an environmental and workable alternative to traditional energy
supply, and they represent an alternative to avoid overload in electricity grids. As water and energy
demands vary at every hour of the day and sunlight providing energy to PV panels only occurs during
daily hours, there must be a storage structure that accumulates energy during the day and releases this
energy during the night. The utility manager must know the energetic implications of storing energy
in tanks or batteries while running the installation isolated from electricity grids.
This problem can be misleading without considering the effect of the monthly variation in
irradiation and energy consumption. Energy production in PV arrays and the water demanded by
city customers (and energy demanded) are variable terms. When energy consumption is high (in
summer), it is also energy production and it is not clear as to which is the most favorable and/or
unfavorable month.
This manuscript presents a calculation method that allows any urban WPN to be adapted into
a standalone photovoltaic direct pumping system with energy storage in reservoirs or batteries.
This method considers how to include these influential factors in reaching the right result.
Practitioners may know the best choice of storing energy in batteries, tanks, or an intermediate
solution maintaining the connection to electricity grids.
In particular, the method was applied to an urban WPN with real data. As shown, we found
that energy production was more dependent on variation than energy consumption in a WPN,
with December the most unfavorable month for this study. Battery storage systems have proven to be
the most efficient alternative for the cost analysis performed with the lowest payback periods, but
many utility managers preferred tank storage systems as a guarantee for supply. The tank alternative
is more energy-hungry than the others (Table 5), as the pumping devices should fill the compensation
in a short time (those with irradiation necessary to allow the pumps to work). As Cases I and II obtain
the same economic savings, we get lower payback periods with lower investment performed.
Between these two alternatives, it provides an intermediate solution that involves being connected
to electricity grids and supports provided by PV arrays in the irradiance hours. These combinations
(ranging from 100 to 1000 PV arrays) highlight that we get lower economic savings than in the other
two cases (as the utility is still paying the electric company). The threshold value, in which the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 17 of 20
number of PV panels the WPN cannot consume the whole energy produced, is obtained because of
the calculations (210 in the case study). For greater numbers of PV arrays (the investment remains
proportional) but involving lower economic savings, the result is that the payback period increases.
References
1. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012.
2. International Energy Agency (IEA) Water Energy Nexus. Excerpt from the World Energy Outlook 2016;
International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2016.
3. Bijl, D.L.; Bogaart, P.W.; Kram, T.; de Vries, B.J.M.; van Vuuren, D.P. Long-term water demand for electricity,
industry and households. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 75–86. [CrossRef]
4. Breadsell, J.K.; Byrne, J.J.; Morrison, G.M. Household energy and water practices change post-occupancy in
an australian low-carbon development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5559. [CrossRef]
5. Watson, K.J. Understanding the role of building management in the low-energy performance of passive
sustainable design: Practices of natural ventilation in a UK office building. Indoor Built Environ. 2015, 24,
999–1009. [CrossRef]
6. Berry, S.; Davidson, K. Zero energy homes—Are they economically viable? Energy Policy 2015, 85, 12–21.
[CrossRef]
7. Wittenberg, I.; Matthies, E. Solar policy and practice in Germany: How do residential households with solar
panels use electricity? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 21, 199–211. [CrossRef]
8. Alghamdi, A.; Haider, H.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Inter-University sustainability benchmarking for Canadian
higher education institutions: Water, energy, and carbon flows for technical-level decision-making.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2599. [CrossRef]
9. Hardy, L.; Garrido, A.; Juana, L. Evaluation of Spain’s water-energy nexus. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2012, 28,
151–170. [CrossRef]
10. Cucchiella, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Stornelli, V. Solar photovoltaic panels combined with energy
storage in a residential building: An economic analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3117. [CrossRef]
11. Zsiborács, H.; Baranyai, N.H.; Vincze, A.; Háber, I.; Pintér, G. Economic and Technical Aspects of Flexible
Storage Photovoltaic Systems in Europe. Energies 2018, 11. [CrossRef]
12. Roncero-Sánchez, P.; Parreño Torres, A.; Vázquez, J. Control scheme of a concentration photovoltaic plant
with a hybrid energy storage system connected to the grid. Energies 2018, 11, 301. [CrossRef]
13. Chen, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Bao, G.; Ge, X.; Li, P. A hierarchical optimal operation strategy of hybrid energy
storage system in distribution networks with high photovoltaic penetration. Energies 2018, 11, 389. [CrossRef]
14. Reca, J.; Torrente, C.; López-Luque, R.; Martínez, J. Feasibility analysis of a standalone direct pumping
photovoltaic system for irrigation in Mediterranean greenhouses. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 1143–1154.
[CrossRef]
15. Senol, R. An analysis of solar energy and irrigation systems in Turkey. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 478–486.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 18 of 20
16. Tarjuelo, J.M.; Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A.; Abadía, R.; Camacho, E.; Rocamora, C.; Moreno, M.A. Efficient water
and energy use in irrigation modernization: Lessons from Spanish case studies. Agric. Water Manag. 2015,
162, 67–77. [CrossRef]
17. Chandel, S.S.; Naik, M.N.; Chandel, R. Review of solar photovoltaic water pumping system technology
for irrigation and community drinking water supplies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 1084–1099.
[CrossRef]
18. Córcoles, J.I.; Gonzalez Perea, R.; Izquiel, A.; Moreno, M.Á. Decision support system tool to reduce the
energy consumption of water abstraction from aquifers for irrigation. Water 2019, 11, 323. [CrossRef]
19. Betka, A.; Attali, A. Optimization of a photovoltaic pumping system based on the optimal control theory. Sol.
Energy 2010, 84, 1273–1283. [CrossRef]
20. Elkholy, M.M.; Fathy, A. Optimization of a PV fed water pumping system without storage based on
teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm and artificial neural network. Sol. Energy 2016, 139, 199–212.
[CrossRef]
21. Narvarte, L.; Fernández-Ramos, J.; Martínez-Moreno, F.; Carrasco, L.M.; Almeida, R.H.; Carrêlo, I.B. Solutions
for adapting photovoltaics to large power irrigation systems for agriculture. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.
2018, 29, 119–130. [CrossRef]
22. Mohanty, A.; Ray, P.K.; Viswavandya, M.; Mohanty, S.; Mohanty, P.P. Experimental analysis of a standalone
solar photo voltaic cell for improved power quality. Optik 2018, 171, 876–885. [CrossRef]
23. Mérida García, A.; Fernández García, I.; Camacho Poyato, E.; Montesinos Barrios, P.; Rodríguez Díaz, J.A.
Coupling irrigation scheduling with solar energy production in a smart irrigation management system.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 670–682. [CrossRef]
24. Pardo, M.Á.; Juárez, J.M.; García-Márquez, D. Energy consumption optimization in irrigation networks
supplied by a standalone direct pumping photovoltaic system. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4203. [CrossRef]
25. González Perea, R.; Mérida García, A.; Fernández García, I.; Camacho Poyato, E.; Montesinos, P.;
Rodríguez Díaz, J.A. Middleware to operate smart photovoltaic irrigation systems in real time. Water
2019, 11, 1508. [CrossRef]
26. Wetzel, T.; Borchers, S. Update of energy payback time and greenhouse gas emission data for crystalline
silicon photovoltaic modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2015, 23, 1429–1435. [CrossRef]
27. Kou, Q.; Klein, S.A.; Beckman, W.A. A method for estimating the long-term performance of direct-coupled
PV pumping systems. Sol. Energy 1998, 64, 33–40. [CrossRef]
28. Meah, K.; Fletcher, S.; Ula, S. Solar photovoltaic water pumping for remote locations. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2008, 12, 472–487. [CrossRef]
29. Reddy, P.P.K.K.; Reddy, J.N. Photovoltaic energy conversion system for water pumping application. Int. J.
Emerg. Trends Electr. Electron. IJETEE 2014, 10, 22–29.
30. Child, M.; Haukkala, T.; Breyer, C. The role of solar photovoltaics and energy storage solutions in a 100%
renewable energy system for Finland in 2050. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1358. [CrossRef]
31. Holdermann, C.; Kissel, J.; Beigel, J. Distributed photovoltaic generation in Brazil: An economic viability
analysis of small-scale photovoltaic systems in the residential and commercial sectors. Energy Policy 2014, 67,
612–617. [CrossRef]
32. Wong, J.; Lim, Y.S.; Tang, J.H.; Morris, E. Grid-connected photovoltaic system in Malaysia: A review on
voltage issues. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 535–545. [CrossRef]
33. Arab, A.H.; Chenlo, F.; Mukadam, K.; Balenzategui, J.L. Performance of PV water pumping systems. Renew.
Energy 1999, 18, 191–204. [CrossRef]
34. Muhsen, D.H.; Khatib, T.; Abdulabbas, T.E. Sizing of a standalone photovoltaic water pumping system using
hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods. Sol. Energy 2018, 159, 1003–1015. [CrossRef]
35. Khatib, T.; Ibrahim, I.A.; Mohamed, A. A review on sizing methodologies of photovoltaic array and storage
battery in a standalone photovoltaic system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 120, 430–448. [CrossRef]
36. Li, C.H.; Zhu, X.J.; Cao, G.Y.; Sui, S.; Hu, M.R. Dynamic modeling and sizing optimization of stand-alone
photovoltaic power systems using hybrid energy storage technology. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 815–826.
[CrossRef]
37. Ru, Y.; Kleissl, J.; Martinez, S. Storage size determination for grid-connected photovoltaic systems. IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 68–81. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 19 of 20
38. Narvarte, L.; Almeida, R.H.; Carrêlo, I.B.; Rodríguez, L.; Carrasco, L.M.; Martinez-Moreno, F. On the number
of PV modules in series for large-power irrigation systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 186, 516–525.
[CrossRef]
39. Yu, C.; Khoo, Y.S.; Chai, J.; Han, S.; Yao, J. Optimal orientation and tilt angle for maximizing in-plane solar
irradiation for PV applications in Japan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2016. [CrossRef]
40. Hailu, G.; Fung, A.S. Optimum tilt angle and orientation of photovoltaic thermal system for application in
greater Toronto area, Canada. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6443. [CrossRef]
41. Mérida García, A.; Gallagher, J.; McNabola, A.; Camacho Poyato, E.; Montesinos Barrios, P.;
Rodríguez Díaz, J.A. Comparing the environmental and economic impacts of on-or off-grid solar
photovoltaics with traditional energy sources for rural irrigation systems. Renew. Energy 2019, 140,
895–904. [CrossRef]
42. Seme, S.; Lukač, N.; Štumberger, B.; Hadžiselimović, M. Power quality experimental analysis of grid-connected
photovoltaic systems in urban distribution networks. Energy 2017, 139, 1261–1266. [CrossRef]
43. Sugihara, H.; Yokoyama, K.; Saeki, O.; Tsuji, K.; Funaki, T. Economic and efficient voltage management using
customer-owned energy storage systems in a distribution network with high penetration of photovoltaic
systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2012, 28, 102–111. [CrossRef]
44. Pardo, M.A.; Manzano, J.; Valdés-Abellán, J.; Cobacho, R. Standalone direct pumping photovoltaic system or
energy storage in batteries for supplying irrigation networks. Cost analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 673,
821–830. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Batchabani, E.; Fuamba, M. Optimal tank design in water distribution networks: Review of literature and
perspectives. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2012, 140, 136–145. [CrossRef]
46. Kurek, W.; Ostfeld, A. Multi-objective optimization of water quality, pumps operation, and storage sizing of
water distribution systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 115, 189–197. [CrossRef]
47. Ahmad, R. Hydraulic design of water distribution storage tanks. In Water Encyclopedia; John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005.
48. Sarbu, I. A study of energy optimisation of urban water distribution systems using potential elements. Water
2016, 8, 593. [CrossRef]
49. Gómez, E.; Cabrera, E.; Balaguer, M.; Soriano, J. Direct and indirect water supply: An energy assessment.
Proced. Eng. 2015, 119, 1088–1097. [CrossRef]
50. Hamidat, A.; Benyoucef, B. Systematic procedures for sizing photovoltaic pumping system, using water tank
storage. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1489–1501. [CrossRef]
51. Spiers, D. Chapter IIB-2—Batteries in PV systems. In Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics, 2nd ed.; McEvoy, A.,
Markvart, T., Castañer, L., Eds.; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 721–776. ISBN 978-0-12-385934-1.
52. Amrouche, S.O.; Rekioua, D.; Rekioua, T.; Bacha, S. Overview of energy storage in renewable energy systems.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 20914–20927. [CrossRef]
53. Wagner, L. Future Energy Improved Sustainable and Clean Options for our Planet; Overview of Energy Storage
Technologies; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 613–631.
54. Üçtug, F.G.; Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of small-scale hybrid energy systems: Coupling solar
photovoltaics and lithium-ion batteries. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 643, 1579–1589. [CrossRef]
55. Rydh, C.J.; Sandén, B.A. Energy analysis of batteries in photovoltaic systems. Part I: Performance and energy
requirements. Energy Convers. Manag. 2005, 46, 1957–1979. [CrossRef]
56. Todde, G.; Murgia, L.; Deligios, P.A.; Hogan, R.; Carrelo, I.; Moreira, M.; Pazzona, A.; Ledda, L.; Narvarte, L.
Energy and environmental performances of hybrid photovoltaic irrigation systems in Mediterranean intensive
and super-intensive olive orchards. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 2514–2523. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Ghorbanian, V.; Karney, B.; Guo, Y. Pressure standards in water distribution systems: Reflection on current
practice with consideration of some unresolved issues. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016023.
[CrossRef]
58. Rossman, L.A. EPANET 2: Users Manual; Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
59. Giustolisi, O.; Savic, D.; Kapelan, Z. Pressure-driven demand and leakage simulation for water distribution
networks. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2008, 134, 626–635. [CrossRef]
60. Pardo, M.A.; Riquelme, A.; Melgarejo, J. A tool for calculating energy audits in water pressurized networks.
AIMS Environ. Sci. 2019, 6, 94–108.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 738 20 of 20
61. Cabrera, E.; Pardo, M.A.; Cabrera, E., Jr.; Arregui, F.J. Tap water costs and service sustainability, a close
relationship. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 239–253. [CrossRef]
62. Vindel, J.M.; Polo, J.; Zarzalejo, L.F. Modeling monthly mean variation of the solar global irradiation.
J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 2015, 122, 108–118. [CrossRef]
63. Duffie, J.A.; Beckman, W.A. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, 4th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013;
ISBN 978-0-470-87366-3.
64. Balling, R.C., Jr.; Gober, P.; Jones, N. Sensitivity of residential water consumption to variations in climate:
An intraurban analysis of Phoenix, Arizona. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44. [CrossRef]
65. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Chapagain, A.K.; Mathews, R.E.; Richter, B.D. Global monthly water
scarcity: Blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32688. [CrossRef]
66. Kleiner, Y.; Rajani, B. Comprehensive review of structural deterioration of water mains: Statistical models.
Urban. Water 2001, 3, 131–150. [CrossRef]
67. Cabrera, E.; Pardo, M.A.; Cobacho, R.; Cabrera, E. Energy audit of water networks. J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manag. 2010, 136. [CrossRef]
68. Ebara Grupos de Presión Automáticos. Available online: http://www.ebara.es (accessed on
11 November 2019).
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).